1968 and a “New” Understanding of Fascism

Throughout the weeks, I still try
to connect new readings and ideas back to our first discussions of defining
fascism. While we have discussed that fascism was pragmatic, adaptive, and
fluid, having a somewhat rigid frame of terms is still helpful in recognizing
fascism or far-right movements elsewhere. Additionally, the fluid nature of
fascism helped it take on a transnational form. Either way, whether seeing
fascism as a fluid concept, or existing within a rigid framework, I find Roger
Griffin’s article to be quite convincing.

Bringing back some of the key
factors of fascism that Paxton highlighted include: a sense of crisis that is
beyond traditional solutions, need for closer integration of a purer community,
dread of a group’s decline because of corrosive liberalism, class conflict, and
alien influences. These elements of racism, reaction to crisis, and superiority
of one’s group are present in Andrea Mammon’s and Griffin’s articles. Another important
element we discussed is modernity, which is a core pillar in Griffin’s definition
of fascism (Griffin calls it re-birth).

Throughout Mammon’s article, crisis
is discussed in both the Italian and French cases. Racism was also present in
the French case, as was biological racism and the promotion of ‘white
civilisation.’ Of course, there are elements of Paxton’s definition that are
missing here. However, Griffin elaborates on the most important parts of Paxton’s
definition I think. Griffin’s core of fascism rests on populist ultra-nationalism
and palingenesis, or re-birth. Interestingly, both of these elements are, as
Griffin calls them, “highly flexible” concepts.

When first reading Paxton, I
interpreted the elements of fascism as quite fluid and adaptable. “Crisis” can
be many things, it can be anything the leaders of a fascist movement want it to
be. Dread of a group’s decline can also be applied to many issues. These elements
that Paxton described fall neatly into Griffin’s term for re-birth. Since there
can be “a vast array of diagnoses of the causes of decline and the sources of
renewal.”

It may seem contradictory that in
a definition of fascism, main elements are subject to change, and expected to
change. I particularly liked how Griffin described fascism’s eclecticism and
tendency to absorb, what I assume are only the useful elements of “potentially
contradictory ideologies.” However, this is in line with how we discussed
fascism in previous weeks. Key factors of fascism are pragmatism and fluidity,
which is why it is impossible to draw concrete definitions from historical
examples of fascism. Although there were common elements of crisis, nationalism
and superiority of race, they were applied very differently across time and
space. Of all of the definitions of fascism we have come across and discussed,
Griffin’s appears the most convincing, while being succinct and encompassing of
the adaptability and morphing of fascism.